...Nah, I don't really think Clinton's overreaction on Chris Wallace's show yesterday was a "meltdown" but it did come across as a bit strange (maybe he's trying to abstain from Big Macs again...)
Here's the thing (and the three of you that listen to the radio show already heard me say this):
I don't blame/fault Clinton for not taking that chance to "get" bin Laden. You all see what pre-emptive action gets a President. I have no doubt that the same conservatives that are complaining now that he didn't do it would have been belly-aching then if he had. They would have said it was just a distraction to Monica Lewinsky and what had bin Laden really done to us to warrant a strike, etc.
I have to say that Clinton did lose me with the blame-shifting section of the interview. He didn't need to go into what anyone else had or hadn't done --he should have just said -'I didn't think it was warranted at the time and I was wrong.' He did indeed say something like , "I was closer than anyone else and I failed" --but that was kinda the point his critics were making... Back then anything he would have done would have been construed as a 'Wag the Dog' ploy because of Monica (which I guess once again reiterates why there should have been no Monica).
Chris Wallace (who is not a right-leaning commentator) asked him a simple, relevant question and he just goes off. Even stating "You accused me of giving aid and comfort to Bin Laden" which Wallace SO did not (nor did he even imply). It was a bit embarrassing to watch.
So does it bother me in all the 'blame bush' rhetoric the left likes to forget that Clinton passed on his chance to kill bin Laden? Of course. Do I blame Clinton for 9/11? Of course not. (Do I think he may benefit from some Ativan? Uh, yeah.)
(You can watch the interview at FNC)